Tonight`s lead, the verdict and after the verdict. More than a year ago, I and others called for a full investigation into the killing of Trayvon Martin. The jury has spoken in the case in the state of Florida versus George Zimmerman. It was deeply disappointing, the verdict that came forth. But the process is one we must respect and move on.

But the question is move on how. First, the justice department`s investigation. The department has now announced it is reopening its federal review of the case, an investigation we called for last year, this is not new, as to determine whether Trayvon Martin`s civil rights we violated.

This review has support from key members of Congress. After the jury`s verdict, Senator Barbara Boxer wrote, quote, "I don`t think this should be the last word. I fully agree with the decision of the justice department to review the facts of this case." And today three congressmen here in New York also announced their support of that review.

Last year I also called on the justice department to look into whether Stand Your Ground gun laws violates civil rights all across this country. A broad review of these new laws are in order, and we must keep pressing for them.

Today, the New York daily news featured a hooded sweatshirt on its cover with the names of black men killed in decades past, men like Medgar Evers, Emmett Till, and now Trayvon Martin. This continue injustice is why people have been marching all across America, from New York to Chicago to Denver. I have heard from so many of you who are hurt, angry, and just worried about what is next. I can say to you that I also get frustrated, very frustrated. But we can never let our anger blind us and get in the way of progress.

We want equal protection under the law, and we will march and work and sweat to make the laws better and more just and applied equally. We did not come this far to turn around and become like those we fight. The only way we make progress is to make the law work equally for everyone, not break the law and not let our frustrations outweigh and outrun our determination. We are determined as we was when we walk when we walked into Sanford, Florida a year ago to raise the issues that are before us and raise the bigger issues that make these cases happen in the first place. And we must be big enough to deal with all of it.

As the attorney general said today, we cannot let this opportunity pass. We must start dealing with the real critical big issues that make this country unequal and how it deals with justice.

Joining me now is Benjamin Crump, lawyer for the Trayvon Martin family and defense attorney John Burris. He was Rodney King`s attorney during the civil trial of the police officers involved in his beating. He has also referred numerous cases to the justice department for federal review.

Thank you both for joining me.

JOHN BURRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Attorney Crump, what is next for the Trayvon Martin family. First of all, how are they doing? And are they considering a civil lawsuit against George Zimmerman?

BENJAMIN CRUMP, TRAYVON MARTIN FAMILY ATTORNEY: Reverend Sharpton, obviously they were heartbroken. Like so many across the country and across the world when they verdict was handed down. And to quote Sybrina, Trayvon`s mother directly, she cried. She prayed. She cried some more. She got up and went to church. And when she got home, she said attorney Crump, we will not let this verdict define Trayvon Martin. We will define the legacy of Trayvon Martin.

And it was inspiring, Reverend Sharpton, to say the least. She said we come a long way. Now we have to roll up our sleeves and work even harder to make sure this doesn`t happen to anybody else`s child, especially now that this verdict has been handed down.

SHARPTON: You know, over a year ago, you and I and others had talked about the federal government looking into not only this case, but the Stand Your Ground laws. We had a meeting with the U.S. attorney right there in Sanford, Florida. This is nothing new like the media is trying to play and it was always a commitment of this family to deal with issues that were the large issues in this as well so this would not affect other children what they go through.

And I remember Ms. Fulton saying all along, I can`t bring Trayvon back, but we`ve got to change society, whether there is gun laws, Stand Your Ground laws and other things, that this is happening every day to children.

CRUMP: Yes, sir. And I`m so glad you have my good friend and mentor John Burris on, because this question has evolved. And it was and still is at the foundation of equal justice question, Reverend Sharpton. But it has evolved now to one of equal protection.

SHARPTON: Right.

CRUMP: Because anybody who observed that trial know that the proposition of the defense was that because there have been a burglary by African-American teen, that this neighborhood watch follow volunteer with the nine millimeter gun would somehow justify and profiling and following Trayvon Martin based on the way he looked.

So, the question has been framed now for our justice department, is this the law? Is this that you can profile our children and follow them, take the law into your own hands? Because we need to know what to tell our children. And if it is not the law, then a federal civil rights violations should be brought against the killer of Trayvon Martin. So people will know that you can`t do this. The United States Supreme Court says police can`t profile based on race. So how can a citizen with a nine millimeter gun profile our children?

SHARPTON: Now, Attorney Burris, when you look at precedence of federal civil rights cases, and you and I both have been involved in these, Rodney King beating, we saw an acquittal in a state court. Four police officers were acquitted on state charges. Then they were tried on civil rights charges and they were convicted. Two police officers were convicted of federal civil rights charges after they were acquitted.

And there are other precedents that we have seen. So, this is something that is not only possible, but has had a precedent in the past while people acting like this is something that is unthinkable. It has in fact happened and has succeeded in that.

BURRIS: Absolutely. First, if I may compliment you on your comments. I think people need to know that this is not the end. This is just the beginning, then it`s a forward march for progress and we all need to participate.

And certainly, Ben, you have done a wonderful job in Martin family and I really appreciate the work you guys have done.

Let me just say, though, the issue that people talk about is that this is double jeopardy if you were to prosecute it. It is not double jeopardy because the federal statute has different elements and different causes of actions that apply that do not apply in state court. So you can in fact have a separate federal cause of action that is separate and apart from a state case, even if there has been an acquittal. We saw that in Rodney King, and there have been a lot of other cases that I`ve been involved in as well. So, it can be done.

I mean, these issues around the federal prosecution, obviously, is a challenging one. I do believe the big issue in this case was racial profiling, and the issue we have been talking about for a number of years in trying to get the Senate to do something about. Because racial profiling, when you substitute race for probable cause or suspicious conduct, you can get yourself into trouble. And young black kids need to know this could happen f them.

But from our point of view going forward, there were two issues to consider from Sanford. One, did the police department itself have a practice, discriminatory practice of not protecting black African-Americans. And then secondly, whether or not this was based on race. And one could make the argument that because there had been 42 other calls or thereabouts of all African-Americans that he has a state of mind to look into, to prosecute and go after African-Americans. That could be the first element of the offense that needs to be looked at by the justice department.

SHARPTON: Forty-two other calls.

Attorney Crump, pattern and practice at the Sanford police, the stand your ground laws, whether or not they violate civil rights. State law does not supersede federal law. And one of the things that we are looking at here in terms of the justice department is the broader question of the state law itself.

Ironically, there was a law against racial profiling in the state of Illinois done by a man named Barack Obama when he was a state senator. So when we look at the state laws, and we look at how they are applied, the federal government can look at the laws, but we also need to deal with the state law in Florida and other states that have set up situations that come back to haunt us. It`s unimaginable that you have one set of laws in Florida, another in New York, another in Pennsylvania. I think we`ve got to discuss all of that as we deal with the outcome of this case.

BURRIS: From my point.

CRUMP: Absolutely.

BURRIS: What you have to look at is how is this law being applied. Is it being applied, the stand your ground laws? Is it the prosecutor for a case involving a white defendant or not versus that of black defendants. And so, you want to see a discriminatory application of this particular law.

SHARPTON: Attorney Crump?

CRUMP: Yes, I agree. And it is certainly not lost that even though his killer profiled him, the Sanford police department seemed to have profiled Trayvon as well, because they took his killer`s version as the gospel when they got out there on that scene. So it is troubling to many around the country when they say why can`t we get equal justice? Why couldn`t they have look at that fresh and clean. And then even as they considered whether to bring a prosecution, it seemed to always be the killer`s perspective. And it was never a perspective of the victim. And that is really troubling. And that`s why so many people are protesting. That`s why so many people are disappointed with the verdict.

And Reverend Sharpton, I want to say you have said all along, we wanted to have the trial brought. We respect the rule of law. And we want everybody to remain peaceful. However, at the onset we did ask for the department of justice. We wanted the federal government involved and not the local government doing this case, because we understood that they had already had some issues from the onset that was troubling with dealing with the tragic death of Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

SHARPTON: I might also add that you never called and the family never called on people to come in. And you called me. Until the local authorities said there would be no arrest. This was not something that you wanted or anyone wanted to have to make a situation that it became.

You know, people act like people are just jumping all over this situation. I think the family wanted justice. And when they felt they had to get a lot of spotlight and national attention and rally on it, they did it as a last resort. For a couple of weeks, no one knew or did anything about this.

CRUMP: Absolutely. And Tracy and Sybrina have only wanted what any other parent would want if that were your child shot in the heart. They didn`t want anything extraordinary. They just wanted simple justice. The killer of their unarmed teenaged son to be held accountable and their son`s death not to be in vain. And that`s why they are continuing the fight. And I am happy attorney Burris said what he said. I`m happy you have always said what you said. This is going to be a long struggle. And Sybrina and Tracy are committed and we pray that you all continue to stand with them in this fight because can`t bring Trayvon back. It really is about your children now.

SHARPTON: Attorney Burris, quickly, does this have to be a hate crime for the justice department to proceed?

BURRIS: I think it has to be a hate crime based upon race. I mean, ultimately, its race that is at issue here. So you have to have animus towards this person because of his race. And this is the basis upon which you killed him.

And so the caution here is how do you prove that? Because that`s just the first step. Then you have to have significant evidence there is obviously an overwhelming state interest involved here, a federal interest because you can`t kill somebody based upon the race and that the government have some interest in it. So then, the question is what evidence is it (INAUDIBLE). That`s what the government has to really look at the facts to see more about his prior history and his calling. Look at these individual cases and the other 42 calls to see what facts were there and how similar are they to those of Trayvon Martin and the fact that that cost him to use suspect when it really was a code word for black.

SHARPTON: Benjamin Crump, John Burris, thank you both for your time tonight.

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Independent of the legal determination that will be made. I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Have you joined the "Politics Nation" conversation on facebook yet? Over the weekend, thousands came to our facebook page to watch live as the Zimmerman verdict was delivered. And the case has been a big topic in the "Politics Nation" facebook community.

Many people are also talking about the case of Marissa Alexander, the Florida woman now serving 20 years in prison for firing a gun and not hitting anyone. We`ve covered her story before, and we will revisit it tonight.

On both cases, we want to hear what you think. Please head over the facebook and search "Politics Nation" and like us to join the conversation that keeps going long after the show ends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of Florida versus George Zimmerman verdict. We, the jury, find George Zimmerman not guilty. So say we all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Today, many Americans are trying to understand exactly why the jury reached that verdict. Lots of questions about how the prosecution handled the case.

Helping me to help answer some of questions are MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Bloom and former prosecutor Faith Jenkins.

Thank you both for your time tonight.

FAITH JENKINS, FORMER CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.

LISA BLOOM, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Lisa, let me start with you. Where could the prosecution have done better?

BLOOM: Well, they could have argued a theory of the case for starters in closing argument. You know, when both sides are arguing reasonable doubt, I think an acquittal is a foregone conclusion. And they never did that. They went really to the defense theory of the case, especially the last half of the trial. So the defense has Zimmerman down. Trayvon Martin on top of him, assaulting him. And you know, it`s a fairly reasonable conclusion that George Zimmerman would have to defend himself in that situation, although not necessarily with deadly force.

The prosecution could have argued that Zimmerman was on top there are witnesses who said that. Or that the two men were upright.

SHARPTON: Their own witnesses, that is.

BLOOM: That`s right. Or that both men were upright and moving around and yelling at each other as another prosecution witness demonstrated. The prosecution should have put together, most importantly, out of their dozen blend blunders in this case, the biggest was failure to put together in closing argument by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence which is what prosecutors do, a theory of exactly what happened to counter defense version.

SHARPTON: Go ahead.

JENKINS: I want to add to what Lisa just said. If they would have put forth -- this was a fistfight. George Zimmerman had no serious injuries. He had a bloody nose. He had scratches to the back of his head. Trayvon Martin had no gun, no weapon. This was a fistfight. And the law is you cannot introduce a gun to a fistfight. Perhaps, that would have been a better argument your point, Lisa. Just put it out there and say, this is what happened. They got into a fistfight, but George Zimmerman turned it into a gunfight, which is he is not allowed to do.

SHARPTON: It`s not a gunfight there is only one gun.

JENKINS: Right. But he introduced that to a fistfight, which is not -- which is not the right thing to do.

SHARPTON: Now, today in an interview, the prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda says that Mr. Zimmerman didn`t testify. And let me play for you what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, STATE PROSECUTOR: As we all well know, he`s got the right not to, and he made that decision.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: He was afraid to take the stand?

DE LA RIONDA: The proof is in the pudding. Did he take the stand?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Now, he was afraid to take the stand. The proof is in the pudding. But wasn`t it the prosecutors by putting all of his statements in, they`re saying to show the contradictions, but putting his statements in. Didn`t that create the climate where it became less and less necessary for him to testify?

BLOOM: That is correct. You know, many of us before the trial were really wondering whether Zimmerman would have to take the stand in the prosecutor forced his hand by not putting in exculpatory statements, statements that made George Zimmerman look good. But the prosecutor put all of those in and then it was a very clear decision that there is no way on earth the defense would have George Zimmerman testify.

But the bottom line is, I never thought he was going to testify. Most defendants don`t testify. It`s any way they can get out of that cross-examination by a good prosecutor. To blame that one part of the trial for the loss in this case, I mean, as if that was unexpected? I mean, that`s really startling. Zimmerman had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. He exercised it.

SHARPTON: Go ahead.

JENKINS: Well, here is what they said. The prosecutor said today they knew John Good was going to testify. And they believed because you have to be able to put forth evidence that will give you a self-defense charge, the defense would want a self-defense charge. How would they get that if George Zimmerman doesn`t take the witness stand? In most self-defense cases, the defendant has to testify.

Here, because of John Good, the prosecutors say we knew they would get the self-defense charge because of John Good so we went ahead and put out the statements. The downside to that is obviously, the jury wasn`t convinced by his inconsistencies. He would have made a terrible witness on the witness stand. Look what he said in the Hannity interview. You`re going up against experienced prosecutors in cross-examining. So, I think the lies and the inconsistencies that he told would have been brought out much better on cross-examination in hind side now.

SHARPTON: If there is a civil suit, there, he would have to testify?

JENKINS: Yes, most likely.

SHARPTON: Now, the state attorney, Angela Corey, she talked about the profiling part of the case. Look at this, Faith.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANGELA COREY, STATE ATTORNEY: Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race one of the aspects in George Zimmerman`s mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Now, this was the press conference after the verdict. We didn`t hear that stressed a lot during the case, did we?

JENKINS: Well, they didn`t use the word racial profile but they profiled. And they did emphasize that in the opening, in the closing, and through the introduction of those calls which I know they didn`t mention in the closing arguments.

But I think what they were arguing here is look at a of the bad decisions and all the choices, the wrong assumptions that George Zimmerman made, leading up to the moment where he meets Trayvon face-to-face. He wrongly assumes he is a criminal. He doesn`t belong in the neighborhood. He calls a name, all of these things. And then, they were hoping that the jury would was going to say, look at all the wrong choices he made. And you cannot accept the fact and believe he made the right choice when he pulled the trigger and decided to kill him.

SHARPTON: Now, today, we also see prosecutors off of their view of what happened this night. Look at this, with me, Lisa.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COREY: Nobody just gets a gun out and shoots even trained police officers. When they`re on the ground with a suspect on top of them, they can`t get their guns out that quickly.

JOHN GUY, ASSISTANCE STATE PROSECUTOR: I think there was a struggle. At some point Trayvon became aware of the gun and was backing up and George Zimmerman shot him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Now, this is a theory that we never heard during the case.

BLOOM: Yes. It sure would have been good if the prosecutors instead of talking to the media about these theories afterwards would have offered them in the courtroom, in the aggressive, direct, straight forward way that prosecutors do in every other murder trial in this country. I mean, that`s what`s really astounding to me.

For Angela Corey to say well, we argued racial profiling, was she watching the same trial they was watching? Because actually what happened, and I just read a "New York Times" they`re going to post any minute now on their Web site, what actually happened was prosecutors fought to get in the prior non-emergency calls Zimmerman made where in all cases where he called about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, in all cases, in 100 percent of the cases. It was an African-American person. They got that evidence in. And then they never used it. They never used it on cross-examination of a witness. They never use it in closing argument. They didn`t play it back. So, I think -- and they said in closing arguments this is not about race.

SHARPTON: Hundred percent.

BLOOM: So, I think there was a decision made stream.

JENKINS: I don`t think this would have changed the jury`s mind.

SHARPTON: Lisa Bloom, Faith Jenkins, thank you both for your time tonight.

Ahead, why this verdict and this case is shining light on controversial gun laws in America.

SHARPTON: Florida resident Marissa Alexander is serving 20 years for firing a shot that didn`t hit anybody. And others go free. How is this justice in America? That`s coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: As we`ve said, the jury in this case has spoken. I`m disappointed, but it`s sparked a national debate on important issues facing our country, and it`s also sparking action. We`re seeing rallies and marches around the country with protesters calling for justice and change. The rallies are bringing us together and they`re shining a national spotlight on Florida`s so-called stand your ground law. It`s the controversial law that allows people to use deadly force if they reasonably believe their safety is threatened.

Critics call it the shoot first law. It was pushed and created by the National Rifle Association, and the NRA has been the driving force behind the law. In 2005, the NRA first got stand your ground on the books in Florida. Since then, it`s systematically pushed the law in more than 30 states. And now the world is seeing exactly why this law needs to change.

Joining me now is Florida defense Attorney Ken Padowitz. Thank you for coming on the show, Ken.

KEN PADOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, you know this law better than most. You have defended clients using it. Tell us what affect the stand your ground have in Florida?

PADOWITZ: Well, some people have said the stand your ground law has nothing to do with this case. And I don`t know why, it`s so far off the mark, I don`t know what they`ve been smoking. It has everything to do with this case, and for three reasons. The first reason is because there was no arrest made in this case because the police and the state attorney for that county believed that the stand your ground law prevented them from making an arrest. And that in and of itself was part of this case and part of this trial. And any other type of case similar to this.

Second reason, at the end of the trial, the jury instructions in this case specifically told the jury that they were sworn to follow that a person has the right to stand their ground as opposed to prior to 2005 when I handled many murder prosecutions, and the law to the jury was different, which said that an individual had to use every means possible to avoid the confrontation before resorting to that force.

So two main reasons why stand your ground applied in this case, and on all other cases, many people would say this is a horrible law. It`s not an accident, Reverend, that the Florida Prosecution Attorneys Association representing all the state attorneys in Florida have recommended a repeal of this law.

SHARPTON: Now Dave recommended a repeal of law today. Even the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg put out this statement saying one fact has long been crystal clear. Shoot first laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws drafted by gun lobby extremists in Washington encourage deadly confrontation by enabling people to shoot first and argue justifiable homicide later. There is clearly the beginning of this case was on stand your ground from the night at the police station when stand your ground was the reason high they let George Zimmerman go.

PADOWITZ: Absolutely. And you know, there is an old saying that us lawyers have heard many times and most people have heard, driving while black. Well, in this case many people are now saying, it`s walking while black. It`s now changed. And that`s a horrifying thing. You know, we can`t ignore facts. The facts are that since 2005 when this law was enacted in Florida, there is a 200 percent increase in homicides where the claim is self-defense. Two hundred percent.

Now, if that`s the case, we need to take a real hard look at this law. Because what a lawyer has to tell their clients is if you were in a situation with a gun and you`re in a place you`re allowed to be, you better shoot that person right through the heart and kill them, not just injury them, kill them. So that no one can refute your claim you were responding your ground and you`re defending yourself.

You know, that`s a shame if that`s what our society has come to. That`s how bad this law is. And that`s why the prosecutors in the state of Florida, all over the state represented by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association want it repealed.

SHARPTON: Ken Padowitz, thank you for your time.

PADOWITZ: Thank you.

SHARPTON: And putting the spotlight on. Putting a spotlight on, making national, and making people understand what is going on in egregious way is what marches and protests do. It is why we went to Sanford in the first place. Marching and protests do not solve problems. But it exposes problems, big problems. And no one will deal with things unless they`re exposed.

Joining me now are two that engage in that is the Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, chairman of the conference of National Black Churches, he`s also chairman of the board of the National Action Network, my civil rights organization. And Pastor Jamal-Harrison Bryant from the Empowerment Movement, thank you both for joining me.

SHARPTON: The activism that both of you involved with me in the beginning around these big issues and around this case, and now going forward has always been nonviolent. And we insist on that. But it also must deal with leading to real fundamental change. Dr. Richardson?

RICHARDSON: You know, the change is critical. We`ve been here before. Too often have we been where we are now. At a place of disappointment and frustration. What the black church has to do and the leadership must be an incubator for that frustration, and transfer it into opportunity with strategic action. We`ve got to take up this responsibility. Our people are frustrated. They`re looking for some sense of direction, where do we go from here, how do we address this.

It seems overwhelming that here we are over and over again 50 years from 1963. We`re back at the same place all over again. No high unemployment in the black community. Voter acts gone. Black men being killed and not being accountable. This is -- this is recurring. It`s frustrating, but the church must incubate our disappointment and turn into it opportunity.

SHARPTON: Reverend Bryant, as we look at this 50 years later and we`re getting ready, Martin Luther King III and all of us come together to march and deal with the issues of today, voting rights and equal protection under the law, the challenge is for activism today is to put that spotlight on not only these particular cases, which clearly is front and center in the minds of the nation now, because people like us went to Florida. But also to deal with stand your ground laws and other laws which laws were changed in the `60s when there was discipline in strategic action.

BRYANT: Well, one of the critical place, Reverend Sharpton, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary is what made Magic Johnson a great play was not all of his shots, but his ability to pass. Marching is the first step. Martin Luther King Jr. did an incredible job. But we cannot forget the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. He marched all the way to the point guard line and Thurgood Marshall had to help pass the law.

What we`ve done in the past year is to raise on your attention on stand your ground and now we have to move forward to begin changing the law. That`s why we`re standing with you Saturday in 100 cities in front of federal courts in 100 cities to raise attention about now it is that laws have got to change, and the federal government has going to have to investigate it. The reality is Florida has dropped the ball and the Department of Justice is going to have to pick it up.

SHARPTON: State law, and states that have like the stand your ground law, it with state laws that was confronted in the `60s.

RICHARDSON: Yes.

SHARPTON: And here we are again. And I think that we must not miss the bigger points as we deal with the family of Trayvon Martin and others pursuing something, and the contradictions were getting ready to talk about with the Alexander case. But also Dr. Richardson, how we handle our protests. One of the things that I saw over the weekend with protests we saw or were involved in was they were mostly all peaceful, which is very important. Yet we heard all of the rhetoric from many on the right. They`re going to be riots almost like they were stereotyping a whole community like they couldn`t handle the verdict without being reckless.

RICHARDSON: Los Angeles, for instance. The police were out just like they were expecting us to go to war. We`ve been responsible people. Our people have been accountable. We`ve always fought the system to correct our indifference. And I think it`s unfortunate when we get caught with this idea that somehow when we stand up again for our rights that we are calling for violence and chaos. We have calmed the chaos. And that must be our role as we go forward.

SHARPTON: And it`s like a collective profiling, Reverend Bryant. You have brought out a lot of young people with all of these. These young people are not thugs and hoodlums that cannot operate with disciplined protests and focus where they`re going.

BRYANT: Aristotle said something very key, he said a wise man knows how to be angry at the right degree, at the right person, and at the right time. Young people have done an exemplary job of modeling civil rights 2.0. You all would know that in order for you to participate in student nonviolent coordinating committee. You had to go through weeks of training before they allowed you to pick or be able to hold up your voice or mantle to make sure that you could in fact undergird the principles of nonviolence.

By and large, the thousands of young people and Reverend Sharpton, we`ve been all over the country from Los Angeles to New York to Miami, these young people have done it without trying -- but they have a level of maturity and discipline that says they understand anger has to be at the right degree and towards the right target. Our hats go off to this next generation of civil rights activists who understand that we`ve got to march forward, but even with our rage just got to be directed in the right way.

SHARPTON: Reverend Richardson, it is also not now and has never been an all-black movement. There are many whites that have marched on this, many Latinos, many Asians, as in the `60s. We`re talking about right and wrong, even though we`re dealing with questions of race, even though we`re dealing in sometimes questions of gender, homophobia, whatever it is, it`s about all people standing for what is right.

RICHARDSON: It`s clearly we have multiple dimensions to this struggle. And it just happens to be that the African-Americans under pressure in America provided the framework and the ground for many causes of liberation to take their place. Whether in South Africa or the Berlin Wall falling down, whatever, it grew out of our ability to respond to our oppression and the racism that has been inflicted on us in this country.

SHARPTON: Well, Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson and Pastor Jamal Harrison Bryant, I`m happy to have both of you with us tonight, ministers and activists around the country will be in 100 cities in front of federal buildings this Saturday, saying that we must deal with these state laws, and we must call on the Justice Department to look into the civil rights violation and this case. And they will be gathering around the country. Thank you both for being here.

BRYANT: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Ahead, the woman serving 20 years for firing a shot that hit a wall. Yet others go free. How is this justice in America? That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Twenty years behind bars for a warning shot that didn`t hit anyone. But a man who killed an unarmed 17-year-old walks free. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: In the days since George Zimmerman`s acquittal, attention has refocused on another Florida case with a much different outcome.

In 2010, Marissa Alexander fired a gunshot into a wall during an argument with her husband. Alexander said her husband, who had a history of domestic violence, was assaulting her, and it was a warning shot. No one was hurt. But Alexander was charged with three counts of aggravated assault. A judge denied her stand your ground claim, and Alexander was sent to prison for 20 years. Here is what she says about the incident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARISSA ALEXANDER, SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON: I believe when he threatened to kill me, that`s what he was going to do. That`s exactly what he intended to do. And had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here. This isn`t my life I`m fighting for. This is my life and it`s my life, and it`s not entertainment. It is my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Twenty years in prison for firing a warning shot. But a man who killed an unarmed 17-year-old walks free.

Joining me now is Kevin Cobbin, Melissa Alexander`s attorney. And Joy Reid, an MSNBC contributor who covered the story of Marissa Alexander. Thank you both for being here.

JOY REID, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.

KEVIN COBBIN, MELISSA ALEXANDER`S ATTORNEY: Thanks for having me.

SHARPTON: Kevin, your client is serving 20 years. What was your reaction when you saw the verdict over the weekend?

COBBIN: It is definitely disappointing. When you have a case like Marissa Alexander who should be the poster child for what stand your ground law is, a woman who had been abused several times, been placed in the hospital, had an injunction for protection, and yet she is not getting the benefit of the doubt and allowed to use the stand your ground law as it clearly states in the legislature, but yet someone like George Zimmerman can use it, it`s frustrating. And it shows that we definitely have --

SHARPTON: Let me review that again, Kevin. She had been hospitalized, assaulted, and had had a peace warrant issued, yet with all of this, and she was assaulted by this husband she sent the warning shot that threatened to kill her. With all of, that she was denied the use of stand your ground in court by the judge?

COBBIN: Absolutely. And we see that too often in court. You know, when black defendants are -- they`re not given the benefit of the doubt. It`s not reasonable that they defend themselves. But we see time and time again, as in the Zimmerman case, the law seems to apply to them. And that`s why we have a serious problem here in Florida, and we need to address that.

SHARPTON: Joy, you covered this case. And this case is something that a lot of people, we mentioned it on this show and our radio show before. A lot of people are raising it this weekend as we talk about the Justice Department looking at the application of stand your ground even in Florida, as well as why the law itself needs to be dealt with.

REID: Absolutely. And a lot of people are also probably not aware that the exact same state attorney that prosecuted George Zimmerman Angela Corey prosecuted Marissa Alexander, vigorously prosecutor by the way after she rejected an initial plea deal. She went in and prosecuted her to the fullest extent of the law, 20 years sentence. And keep in mind also that Marissa Alexander`s husband had previously thrown her across the bathroom and she landed in the tub, had landed her in the hospital while pregnant. She had a very young child that is now growing up with the abusive husband who told police investigators very forthrightly that he has beaten every single girlfriend he`s ever had except one. And by the way --

SHARPTON: He had five. Five different women had children of him. And he had said he beat every one of them.

REID: Beat everyone of them except one, and the one was not Marissa Alexander. He beat her too. And at this time of this incident, she had been chased into a bathroom after receiving a text message from a male friend, and the husband became enraged. She said he chased her into the bathroom, attempted to force his way into the bathroom. And when she (inaudible) to try to flee to the garbage, he cornered her. She fired a warning shot over his head in the kitchen. Angela Corey`s explanation for why she charged her so heavily was because there were two older children in the house. They weren`t even in the vicinity of the gunshot.

But now we have a situation where a minor was the victim of a fatal shooting. There was no arrest initially. The prosecution seemed to be very limp. They didn`t seem really to go for it the way they went for it with Marissa Alexander. But if stand your ground doesn`t apply to a woman who has got a known abuser she is facing, someone menacing her inside her own home. She is in her castle. Castle doctrine means you`re in your castle, you don`t have a duty to retreat. Angela Corey`s explanation was, she could have ran out the front door. No duty to retreat is supposed to mean no duty to retreat, but apparently it didn`t apply here.

SHARPTON: Now, let me go back to you, Kevin. In terms of the broad use of stand your ground, it is at the broad discretion of a prosecutor and a judge, right? Because I want people to understand as egregious as this individual case, there is a systematic problem with this law and how it is structured in Florida, and 29 other states.

COBBIN: The problem is that you -- if I don`t apply stand your ground to apply to all defendants, and you apply it one way to some person and another way to another person, you basically, there`s no -- what is stand your ground? What is self-defense? And so then you have Marissa Alexander`s case where if the prosecutor then decides to add the enhancement of 10, 20 life which they did in her case, and if she goes to trial, she is basically stuck with a 20-year sentence where nobody has discretion to change that. And that`s happened to people every single day. They`re getting these tremendously long sentences on first-time offences when they have valid claims of self defense, valid stand your ground claims. And it`s a problem all across the state.

SHARPTON: This is a huge discrepancy in terms of how this discretion is used, Joy.

REID: Yes. Absolutely. And the other problem with stand your ground is, first of all it encourages you in a sense to shoot to kill. Because in cases where the person you shoot survives, because there is another witness, and in this case they used one of the young children as one of the witnesses, it`s very difficult to win a stand your ground case. You know how you win? If the person you shoot dies.

SHARPTON: Kevin Cobbin and Joy Reid, thank you for your time tonight.

REID: Thank you.

COBBIN: Thank you.

SHARPTON: We`ll be right back. We wanted to get that out there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Finally tonight, the fight for justice from 50 years ago to today. This photo was taken. It was taken on July 15th, 1963, and it shows members of the Birmingham, Alabama fire department turning their hoses on civil rights demonstrators who were fighting for equal rights.

Fifty years later, we`ve come a long way, but we have a long way to go. I thought about that this weekend. I thought about how 50 years later we had a verdict that many of us are disappointed. But I thought about how 50 years ago when they turned fire hoses on those marches, they didn`t go home and get fire hoses larger to shoot water back. They fought back by being bigger, stronger, more determined, and, yes, more excellent in their character than those that were coming against them.

And they never gave up fighting until they made change come. Those marches was led by a man named Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth 50 years ago. Friday night I spoke in Birmingham, Alabama. I rode to my speaking location from the Fred Shuttlesworth Airport in Birmingham. Mr. Shuttlesworth, Reverend Shuttlesworth, not only won that battle, the airport in that town is named after him. The sheriff that turned the hose on him, Bull Conner, there is no airport named after him.

People that change history are recorded by history. I think it was Ryan -- said, "Truth crushed to earth shall rise again." If we stand up for what is right and be right as we stand, we can change big things and little things will also change. Because it shifts with the big things in society.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2013 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.>